From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stevens v. Unknown Name Employee(s) of Dep't of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Feb 3, 2016
Case: 1:16-cv-00184 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2016)

Opinion

Case: 1:16-cv-00184

02-03-2016

TOMMY LEE STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN NAME EMPLOYEE(S) OF DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants.


Assigned To : Unassigned
Assign. Date : 2/4/2016
Description: Pro Se Gen. Civil MEMORANDUM OPINION

The trial court has the discretion to decide whether a complaint is frivolous, and such finding is appropriate when the facts alleged are irrational or wholly incredible. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992); see Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) ("[A] complaint, containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact."). Among other things, the plaintiff alleges that the defendants are responsible for "delaying or destroying or tampering with [his] legal mail," Compl. at 1, to the United States Court of Federal Claims, see id. at 3. The defendants allegedly are taking this action to hide "their involvement in illegal research being conducted by the Dep[artment] of Health and Human Services . . . by use of transceivers implanted in human subjects without consent." Id. at 2. By denying the plaintiff access to the courts, "the defendant(s) are attempting to cover for their illegal activities and at this same time continue to terrorize plaintiff and other citizens whom they are using as supposed research subjects for not submitting to their will." Id. at 3.

Having reviewed the complaint, the Court concludes that what factual contentions are identifiable are baseless and wholly incredible. Furthermore, the allegations of the complaint "constitute the sort of patently insubstantial claims" that deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Therefore, the Court will grant the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis and will dismiss the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is issued separately. DATE: February 3, 2016

/s/_________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Stevens v. Unknown Name Employee(s) of Dep't of Justice

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Feb 3, 2016
Case: 1:16-cv-00184 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2016)
Case details for

Stevens v. Unknown Name Employee(s) of Dep't of Justice

Case Details

Full title:TOMMY LEE STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. UNKNOWN NAME EMPLOYEE(S) OF DEPARTMENT OF…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Date published: Feb 3, 2016

Citations

Case: 1:16-cv-00184 (D.D.C. Feb. 3, 2016)